gleninAZ

Show me your tax returns and I'll show you mine! I make that much money and I will fight as hard as it takes to defend resident priority as well as a fair NR allocation of tags. I think if we really believe in the heritage of hunting and understand that the resource is limited we need to keep it possible for lower income hunters to continue in the sport. My grandson may not have the money you and I are lucky enough to have. As for your private tag statement you can't buy one in Arizona and neither can Taulman's other boys. We are working hard to keep it that way. I even saw a few posts suggesting hunters join up with the huggers to buy up grazing leases and that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. I bet those huggers would be just happy to let us all in to hunt. If you think Taulman is the best thing for hunting then send him all the money you can. My money is gonna offset yours.

silentassassin

I didn't say I was going to side with him on every issue, just the fighting of this bill.

That's really a seperate issue and while I agree to some extent I also disagree with part of that but again that's a seperate issue from supporting and or joining him in fighting these proposed bills.

They probably flipped them off when they filed that first suit as well However, we have both seen that flipping off the public concern may not be the best idea because you may piss them off and take you to court and the court may not side with the state in which case they would feel kind of stupid after such a display of arogance.

The difference being that most universities aren't federally funded. However, many of the game areas in these states are funded with federal taxes and therefore should be equal in access to everyone. Universities are typically funded by the state and therefore should have the discretion in their admittance and fee schedules. However, if they do recieve federal funding then they should also provide equal access at equal cost or face the possibility of losing that federal funding. There maybe several positive spin offs from this

silentassassin

Glen, that's what we are trying to do. If the governement and or courts don't step in here and put the game departments in check then prices are going to to spin out of reach. That's why we need some litigation to stop the greedy bast@rds from raising tag prices out of reach. I am unclear as to how it is that you feel tags prices are going to come down when you control the demand and no outside forces come into play. That has been the situation for the last few years and prices are climbing ever higher.

gleninAZ

Assasin-The tag prices will not come down either way! Taulman has given states the excuse to raise them and they have run the increases by the AG's office. Now that they are going up I see no way they will come down. Now if you ever hunted the reservation you know that a trophy bull can get $20000 and if Taulman gets his way you will have to pay that on our state lease land as well or settle for low grade animals. If you think George is in it to lower your hunting costs then go for it. I don't buy that one for a minute.

gleninAZ

Assasin-the deal on federal funding for building the wildlife is bogus. You show me where the feds ever spent a dollar on game management or enforcement. You really think the feds want to take over the cost of game management? The states would just fold the game departments to save the cost. Not too realistic.

silentassassin

They will if the courts step like they have done with tag allotments.

I believe George is in it for George. I believe George is the best vehicle available to fight the increase in tag prices because increased tag prices is going to hurt his business. My interests are not so much in how much elk tags cost for private land etc. etc. though it may be one day, however, I am more interested in seeing a precedent set by the courts that will stop states from descriminating against NRs via pricing. My interest are more centered in the mid-west and revolve around whitetails (at the moment) but a precedent set by the court could put and end to some of the price gouging that's going on all over the country. As we have all seen all it takes is one court and the blink of an eye and that can happen. Then there will be a trickle down effect to the others states and game and fish departments that are getting out of control. I don't give a **** about George Taulman. I just think his current cause may benefit me (and little guys everywhere) and it may be our only shot at taking on this monster. If nothing else I respect the fact that he had the stones to stand up and take a shot at the "bullies" that are pushing people around all over this country via allotments and out of control prices. I think the greedy ******** are getting what they deserve.

SpyroAndes

At this point, I'll take what I know over what you think might happen...

FACT = Nonresident Tag prices are absolutely out of control w/ the states in absolute control

NON-FACT = That prices are going to spiral out-of-control if these Bills get shot down

One has a basis in fact, the other is a hypothetical that is not based upon fact.

In the future, if Taulman tries to make hunting a pastime of the rich... I'll oppose him just as hard as I oppose the states using nonresident to subsidize their game departments.

silentassassin

How about I just show you Federal Wildlife Management areas that are supported by federal funds. For example White River National Wildlife Refuge here in Arkansas that is roughly 145,000 acres that is open to public hunting and supported by the federal government. Shouldn't we all have access to the land that our taxes are paying for? Would you think it was fair for it to cost you $500 to drive through Yellowstone because your are a NR and it only cost a resident $5? Afterall, both of our taxes are paying for it.

SpyroAndes

Come on Glen... This is a stupid argument.

What cost is there to the state to maintain a game department?

There is ZERO cost to the state because it is funded by PR, tag and license monies.

They would just have to redistribute the burden of generating all the funds for the Game and Fish from the nonresidents to all tag and license holders in Arizona.

I mean you don't find it a little ***** that the nonresident, who doesn't draw a tag, actually contribute more monies to your Game and Fish Department's budget than the Resident that draws?

Lets get f'ing real... If this was ANYTHING ELSE, people wouldn't be so fricking stupid about it.

Lets put it this way, current tuition at a UC school for a resident is $9000 and nonresidents pay $22,000. For sake of simplicity, we will assume that all other out-of-arizona universities charged the same amount for resident and non-resident tuitions.

However, nonresident applicants to these universities must pay a $12,000 application fee to even be considered for admission.

You better hope that little Johnny or Sally have amazing grades because ASU and NAU are going to become a royal bitch to get into.

Then again you do have 2 other options, spend $50,000 per year to send them to Private school (the 'landowner' permit of education) or just come to grips with the fact that they won't goto college.

SA

PS. Atleast public universities can justify the deiscrepancy in resident and nonresident tuition because they are funded from the State's GENERAL FUND (e.g. funds from state taxes).

gleninAZ

Guys, the fact is the Heritage fund which is generated from state lottery purchases and fishing and boating license sales generate a huge percentage of the funding. The feds don't spend squat of our tax dollars to maintain the roads or manage the herds. The only area that they do spend money on is in waterfowl refuges. You get your way and the resident hunters will have no opportunity so they won't give one hour of labor to clean up, cut juniper or haul water during drought years. It just kills me that a hunter would support the 9th circus commie court to get something that they want for their personal gain. I will let you all squabble on and will just do what I can to stop you from getting your way.